Don't kill me, but I actually liked the books. I thought they were very well written, and I don't think my taste in books are that bad. I'm usually a James Patterson, Mary Higgins Clark, Sue Grafton, reader. And I think most people were missing the point of the story, or maybe we weren't reading the same books.

Plot points aside, whether or not a vampire can sparkle, or come out in the daytime, can't really be argued. Since they don't exist, we really don't know what they can do. And just because someone came up with vampires a 100 or more years ago, doesn't make them an authority on the subject.

Really, what I got out of them was that vampire/werewolf thing was really secondary to the story. Two kids (although, in Edward's case, he's not really a "kid") fall in love and they have problems. In this case, their problems just happen to include vampires and werewolves.

I'm not understanding the obsession. They're books. Enjoy them, re-read them, if you so desire, and move on. I've even seen the movies. I can't, for the life of me, understand grown women, teen-agers maybe, but not grown women, get all twitter-pated over this. This is the exact reason why I did not see Titanic. Everyone thought it was so freaking epic, and the absolute best piece of film making ever, that I was instantly turned off. I actually felt that way about the Twilight series, until I read it.

Now, while I enjoyed the books, and will re-read them, since I do that with all my books, but, I'm not going to say it's the best thing written since War and Peace, or whatever else hits the top as the best book ever written. So what these psycho, fanbrats need to do, is enjoy them for what they are, and stop acting like they're the best piece of fiction that's ever graced the planet.

By the way, Lysander, you're paraphrasing thingy here was hysterical! Thank god I wasn't drinking while reading it. Very enjoyable.

Plot points aside, whether or not a vampire can sparkle, or come out in the daytime, can't really be argued. Since they don't exist, we really don't know what they can do. And just because someone came up with vampires a 100 or more years ago, doesn't make them an authority on the subject.

Yes we can, and yes it does. We can say that vampires don't sparkle, because the man who created the idea never mentioned that they do. In fact, the only adverse affect Dracula had to sunlight was that it weakened his powers, so technically vampires shouldn't even die when they go into the sun. The only reason I accept that it is that it can be explained that they aren't nearly as powerful as Dracula, and therefore are unable to withstand the sunlight the way he was. But sparkling plays no role in that.

Also, to say that "just because someone came up with vampires a 100 or more years ago, doesn't make them an authority on the subject" is bullshit on a grand scale. Of course it makes him an authority on the subject, you know why? Because he invented the damned subject! That's like saying, "Just because Gene Rodenberry made Klingons, it doesn't make him an authority on them." Of course it makes him a bloody authority, he created everything about Klingons!

^^^ True, legends and myth dating back to a really long time ago, yadda yadda.

None of those legends ever had vampires sparkling, though, so Knight's overarching point that vampires do not sparkle because [the cultures that invented them] never made any mention of any sparkling is still pretty valid, I'd say. It'd be like saying that the Easter Bunny actually being sixteen feet tall and scaly can't be argued because it doesn't actually exist.

I need to figure out how to be less wordy.

Fun fact: in the original (western European) folklore, vampires were actually very ruddy (despite being dead, dunno how that works), and not at all classy. The whole 'charismatic vampire' thing was a Victorian invention.

(It eventually lead to Ayami Kojima's delicious character designs for the Castlevania series—and indeed the series itself—though, so I'm not complaining.)

You know, I think saying "Well, so and so who made vampires popular didn't make them sparkle so vampires don't sparkle!" is really a lame argument. WAIT WAIT LET ME FINISH

I understand that there's a certain standard of mythos to follow, and that a lot of people are insulted by what Stephenie Meyer has done to it. I, myself, scoff at some of the changes she made - vampires sparkling and having no weaknesses and only one real way to kill them? Ew. That's just bad writing, vampires or no vampires.

However, to say "SHE CHANGED IT THEREFORE IT IS BAD" is totally discrediting good authors that take cliche concepts and put new spins on them. Has anyone ever read Robin McKinley's Sunshine? How about Vivian Vande Velde's Companions of the Night? Both those books take the vampire legends and twist them in certain ways, but they do it well, and the difference is that their vampires have certain weaknesses and aren't endlessly described as freakishly beautiful. Plus, those authors have good form stylistically and probably actually listen to their editors. (Sorry, Kelley, while I don't absolutely loathe Twilight, I must say that it is not good writing; it is a shade under mediocre. Poor sentence structure, word choice, plot construction. It's just not good writing no matter how you cut it.)

So yeah, while the sparkling is just ridiculous, I don't think it's ridiculous because she fucked with vampire mythology. It's ridiculous because goddamn her vampires sparkle what the fuck, man.

I think ultimately what bothers people isn't that she made vampires different, it's that the way she made them different was to remove all of their weaknesses, thus making an already suspenseless plot even more so and making the characters even less interesting than the bad writing alone would have. It removes conflict, which is vital to a story.

I think ultimately what bothers people isn't that she made vampires different, it's that the way she made them different was to remove all of their weaknesses, thus making an already suspenseless plot even more so and making the characters even less interesting than the bad writing alone would have. It removes conflict, which is vital to a story.

Ah, see, this is the point I was tripping around. You said it better than me, Princey.

LurvSporkbender

Join date : 2009-06-11Age : 28

Subject: Re: Twilight: The Death of Feminism Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:08 pm

Making them different is not a bad thing in and of itself. I certainly wasn't avoiding the books (even before I heard just how bad they were) because I thought they seemed too original.

Is it anything like that scene in Interview With the Vampire. where Louis takes out all the vampires that killed the little girl and the woman he had just turned? Cause that was awesome.

See, this is what I was kind of talking about earlier. We have a group of people, with one person on the like side, and several on the hate side, and we're actually talking about it like civilized people. I have no burning desire to make it my mission in life to convert all of you. That's why I usually don't get involved in discussions about this subject. People are way too obsessed to listen to either side. It's like a freaking war.

And I'm actually going to admit that I probably have no idea what makes great fiction. Usually what I consider great fiction is something that grabs me right away, and makes me want to read more. I'll be honest, most of what is considered "classic" and "great" fiction, bores me. I didn't read Little Women until my 20s because I couldn't get past the first chapter. I didn't make it past the first page of Peter Pan. Never read the LoTR series, or Alice In Wonderland. Or, anything by Jane Austen. They all bored me.

Twilight series, however, did not. And really, I can't tell you why. Like I said before, maybe I wasn't reading it the same way everyone else was. Or, it could be that I have weird taste. (When I'm not deep into a murder mystery, I like to indulge in a little re-reading of the Sweet Valley High series.)

You know, I actually enjoyed the discussion. I've never had one like this on any video game board I've been on. And thanks for reminder on what the "paraphrasing thingy" is actually called. I shouldn't be allowed to type anything at this time of night, after working all day.

Funnily enough, I am working on undergrad research for that right now! Figuring out why Twilight resonates with people, especially the American public.

Rabid BadgerAnd This is Why I Need Medication

Join date : 2009-06-10

Subject: Re: Twilight: The Death of Feminism Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:31 am

InkWeaver wrote:

kelley28 wrote:

Twilight series, however, did not. And really, I can't tell you why.

Funnily enough, I am working on undergrad research for that right now! Figuring out why Twilight resonates with people, especially the American public.

Be sure to let us know what you find out. Given the way it completely captivated Morgan, I'd be interesting in what it's allure is to the people who're so fascinated by it.

BlooferladySporkbender

Join date : 2009-06-10Age : 27Location : In your closet

Subject: Re: Twilight: The Death of Feminism Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:56 am

kelley28 wrote:

Penguin wrote:

NOW KELLEY28, IT'S TIME TO EDUCATE YOU ON HOW REAL VAMPIRES DO BATTLE

Is it anything like that scene in Interview With the Vampire. where Louis takes out all the vampires that killed the little girl and the woman he had just turned? Cause that was awesome.

Have some Hellsing.

kelley28 wrote:

I'll be honest, most of what is considered "classic" and "great" fiction, bores me.

I suppose the difference for me is that I'm generally bored by newer fiction, and find the classics to be the best. My absolute favorite book is The Count of Monte Cristo and following that, Dracula. And Pride and Prejudice, and I could just go on.

I'd also just like to tell Inky and Penguin that they're awesome. Inky, I definitely want to read your research project when you're done.

Funnily enough, I am working on undergrad research for that right now! Figuring out why Twilight resonates with people, especially the American public.

Be sure to let us know what you find out. Given the way it completely captivated Morgan, I'd be interesting in what it's allure is to the people who're so fascinated by it.

It's probably because they're all gay.

PendragonGirlSporkbender

Join date : 2009-06-13Age : 31Location : Lost in the mists

Subject: Re: Twilight: The Death of Feminism Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:41 pm

kelley28 wrote:

Plot points aside, whether or not a vampire can sparkle, or come out in the daytime, can't really be argued. Since they don't exist, we really don't know what they can do. And just because someone came up with vampires a 100 or more years ago, doesn't make them an authority on the subject.

Really, what I got out of them was that vampire/werewolf thing was really secondary to the story. Two kids (although, in Edward's case, he's not really a "kid") fall in love and they have problems. In this case, their problems just happen to include vampires and werewolves.

Kid, those books could never work without the supernatural bullshit. The reason they are so popular is quite simple, the Superhuman!Sparkly!Adonis loves/obsesses over clutzy Mary Sue who is bland enough for the readers to use as a self-insert. Cue immature teenage girls/older women wanting to be Bella and eternally worshiped by this "perfect" immortal being.

The books are not about "Two kids fall in love and they have problems" + Creatures of the Night. Edward and Bella do not have a healthy relationship, they're co-dependent and he's a creepy stalker. The problem is the relationship itself.